Requiring a permit to carry a gun is Unconstitutional

[Fehrmann69]

imported post

The more people that open carry, the more people that call the LEOs to check it out. There will then come a time where one of two things may happen.

First. The LEOs will get so tired of the interuptions to the job they really need to be doing, that the law will change, to prevent open carry, or

Second. The unconstitutional requirement to have a concealed carry permit, will be overturned, and common sense will prevail, allowing anyone that can legally carry, be able to do as they do in Vermont. Carry concealed without any permit requirement.

Oh happy day!. For the latter choice.

 

[Fehrmann69]

imported post

superdemon wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

If the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, how can any government get away with requiring permits?

A permit is a document basically granting the holder "permission" to carry a gun.We don't need permission.... it's a right protected by the US Constitution, not something we need to beg permission to have.

I think that every gun owner in this country needs to stand up and say we're not going to take it any more. We need to join together and challenge every single law requiring a permit to own or carry a gun as unconstitutional.

"shall not be infringed"

Who would ever put up with having to get a permit to speak our minds or to write a blog or to post in an online forum? I bet if a State began requiring permits to blog and post online and write in newspapers that you'd see every Liberal group in America challenging it and holding mass protests.

In reference to the bold text, you are incorrect, sir.

You have to stop thinking about this in terms of the U.S. Constitution. The 2nd Amendment does nothing more than relegate the issue to the states, as it should be. Now, back to your bolded text, there are many states that are "shall issue" states in reference to weapon permits, ususally pertaining to concealed carry, but sometimes refering to OC as well.

Now, a "shall issue" state is doing all it can, in today's times, to get weapons into the hands and homes of those who want to have them, while attempting to keep them out of the hands that don't/shouldn't have them, such as convicted criminals. I don't have any problem with a state requiring that you take a very basic written and physical test to simply make sure you know which end of the gun the fast parts come out of, and to make sure your background dictates that you are not an undersirable type. Now I know that won't keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, so there's no need to go into that argument...

If you have a problem with your state requiring a permit to carry, then your problem lies not with the federal government, but with your state. In that case, the 2nd amendment is not the issue, so to keep quoting it, and parroting the same tired catchphrases is pointless. Put that energy into changing things at the state level, and you will be way more productive.

And also, never, ever forget that the first line of the second amendment reads as follows...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The word that so many people overlook is regulated.

You are correct in your observation about the Constitution and its' Bill of Rights. There was a Supreme Court decision, I believe sometime in the early 1800s, BLACKSTONE vs BALTIMORE, in which the mayor of baltimore had siezed some private land for public use without 'just compensation'. The decision by the courtdetermined that the bill of rights only protected the individual states from the Federal Government, and did not apply to the individual citizens. When the 13th Amendment 'freed' the slaves, the states used the decision of BLACKSTONE vs BALTIMORE to deny the freed slaves certain rights, ie the right to own guns, property, vote, etc. It wasn't until the introduction of the 14th Amendment, by an Ohio senator named Bingham, sometime in the mid 1800s,that the first eight Amendments to the U.S. Constitution should apply to the individual citizens.(I myself believe that this was the intent of theinitial proposal of the bill of rights' first eight amendmants). The problemwas that the 14th Amendment did not get ratified by all of thestates.U.S. Supreme Court decisions from various appeals finally established some of these rights for all. The first amendment,fourth, fifth, etc. It wasn't until D.C. vs HELLER, that the 'individual' right to posess weapons for self defense was solidified. (And even then it was watered down with language about applying restrictions)

 

[Fehrmann69]

imported post

DustoneGT wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

I see no exception clause in the Constitution that somehow gives the States the right to override the Constitution. I only see their right to override Federal statutes because the Fed is specifically limited by the Constitution.

The Constitution does not give States the right to ignore the Bill of Rights in favor of their own laws or interpretations... this is why we have a Constitution that was ratified by the States.... it is a body of rights and responsibilities that must be followed by all that was agreed upon by all. No State may ignore or make laws that abridge or impare your Constitutional rights. For all 9 other Amendments in the original bill of rights, that interpretation would not stand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

Actually, the Bill of Rights, as originally written, was not meant to apply to the states. Some states had official religions and other things that didn't mesh at the time.

It wasn't until the late 19th century that some amendments were incorporated, using parts of the 14th amendment to justify applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the states.

Most of the other amendments have been incorporated, but not all. The Third Amendment hasn't been decided one way or the other, part of the Fifth has not been incorporated, the Seventh Amendment is not incorporated, and part of the Eighth has not been incorporated.

In D.C. v Heller:

With respect to Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the first amendment did not apply against the states and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

Since the Heller case, federal cases have been filed demanding incorporation of our Second Amendment right, because the cases mentioned above predate the most modern incorporation criteria.

So we might soon have incorporated 2A rights, but as of now we don't and there's the chance that they rule that it's not incorporated.

I don't agree with this, but that's the way it is right now.

And incorporation might not really help us as much as we think. The Heller case said it's OK to regulate the Second Amendment right with regulations, licensing and registration, among other things, and this was written by 'conservative' judges!

If you feel like getting pissed off more at the 'conservative' judged, read the rest of my analysis of DC v Heller: http://www.nolanchart.com/article4123.html . For one thing, they think historical tradition outweighs the whole 'shall not be infringed.' part.

So basically at the federal level, the status of the Second Amendment is as good as it's going to get for the time being. The place to fight for improved rights is at the state level while trying to keep things from getting worse at the federal level.

One must remember. The only check and balance to the Judiciary part of the government is the jury. It is usually refered to as jury nulification. What it means, in a nutshell, is that the jury may aquit the accused, simply because they feel the law that was broken was an unjust law. In a past draft card burningcase, before the U.S. Supreme Court, (I believe it was in the late 60s, early 70s) the Supreme Court decided that no officer of the court could inform the jury of these rights. There has been many efforts to keep the juries misinformed of this, and some to eliminate it all together. This balance needs to be there to prevent the judiciary from passing unjust laws to imprison the 'troublemakers'. Now, if you are being selected for a jury, and you let them know that you know this, you will most likely be disqualified from serving on it. A good example of when you have witnessed this procedure in action, is in justifiable homicide. Also in many cases in California, with regards to marijuana possetion for medical use. Know your rights, and excercise them.